|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov
It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you.
|
On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you.
Did you even read the linked story? You don't seem willing to address my point about Arkipov, or Seven Days to the River Rhine, or the Able Archer crisis, wonder why.
I guess there is no point arguing with you anymore though. According to your logic, you are always right up until the moment the nukes start flying. All I will say is that I am very glad you do not make policy for the UK or US. You are advocating global thermonuclear war whether you realize it or not.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you. Did you even read the linked story? You don't seem willing to address my point about Arkipov, or Seven Days to the River Rhine, or the Able Archer crisis, wonder why. I guess there is no point arguing with you anymore though. According to your logic, you are always right up until the moment the nukes start flying. All I will say is that I am very glad you do not make policy for the UK or US. You are advocating global thermonuclear war whether you realize it or not.
I’m advocating for the same brinkmanship JFK showed in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And yes, I am right that countries don’t get into nuclear exchanges and will be right until a nuclear exchange happens. Every time there has been a risk of a nuclear exchange leaders have deescalated. Conventional exchanges have a 0% record of leading to nuclear exchanges for all of human history.
|
On February 27 2022 10:47 Falling wrote:
I'm very impressed with Zelenskyy. Whatever else, he has the courage of convictions.
I don't know if the Ukraine can survive long enough for the sanctions to be felt, but he is really having his Churchill moments- and this from a former comedian!
He’s essentially a globally regarded hero at this point. If he’s killed, it will be the end of Russia, even if not right away.
He’s totally won the hearts and minds of the world. Russia’s only hope of ever becoming a modern, thriving country is for Zelensky to stay alive.
|
On February 27 2022 12:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you. Did you even read the linked story? You don't seem willing to address my point about Arkipov, or Seven Days to the River Rhine, or the Able Archer crisis, wonder why. I guess there is no point arguing with you anymore though. According to your logic, you are always right up until the moment the nukes start flying. All I will say is that I am very glad you do not make policy for the UK or US. You are advocating global thermonuclear war whether you realize it or not. I’m advocating for the same brinkmanship JFK showed in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And yes, I am right that countries don’t get into nuclear exchanges and will be right until a nuclear exchange happens. Every time there has been a risk of a nuclear exchange leaders have deescalated. Conventional exchanges have a 0% record of leading to nuclear exchanges for all of human history.
While reading One Minute to Midnight, one of the best histories of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I must have missed the chapters where JFK bombed the Russians on Cuba, invaded Cuba with overwhelming conventional force, and sank every Russian ship in the Atlantic. Oh wait, he did none of those because he feared the risk of conventional fighting immediately escalating to the nuclear level. That VERY NEARLY HAPPENED anyways on the submarine where Vasily Arkhipov alone stopped the nukes and saved the world.
Here is the relevant section from Wikipedia
On 27 October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a group of 11 United States Navy destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph located the diesel-powered, nuclear-armed Foxtrot-class submarine B-59 near Cuba. (The B-59 was one of four Foxtrot submarines sent by the USSR to the area around Cuba.) Despite being in international waters, the United States Navy started dropping signaling depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. There had been no contact from Moscow for a number of days and, although the submarine's crew had earlier been picking up U.S. civilian radio broadcasts, once B-59 began attempting to hide from its U.S. Navy pursuers, it was too deep to monitor any radio traffic. Those on board did not know whether war had broken out or not.[6][7] The captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, decided that a war might already have started and wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo.[8]
Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov. Typically, Soviet submarines armed with the "Special Weapon" only required the captain to get authorization from the political officer to launch a nuclear torpedo, but due to Arkhipov's position as chief of staff, B-59's captain also was required to gain his approval. An argument broke out, with only Arkhipov against the launch
If Arkhipov had been on any other of the 4 subs, nuclear exchange between the USSR and the US starts right then.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 12:58 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:48 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you. Did you even read the linked story? You don't seem willing to address my point about Arkipov, or Seven Days to the River Rhine, or the Able Archer crisis, wonder why. I guess there is no point arguing with you anymore though. According to your logic, you are always right up until the moment the nukes start flying. All I will say is that I am very glad you do not make policy for the UK or US. You are advocating global thermonuclear war whether you realize it or not. I’m advocating for the same brinkmanship JFK showed in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And yes, I am right that countries don’t get into nuclear exchanges and will be right until a nuclear exchange happens. Every time there has been a risk of a nuclear exchange leaders have deescalated. Conventional exchanges have a 0% record of leading to nuclear exchanges for all of human history. While reading One Minute to Midnight, one of the best histories of the Cuban Missile Crisis, I must have missed the chapters where JFK bombed the Russians on Cuba, invaded Cuba with overwhelming conventional force, and sank every Russian ship in the Atlantic. Oh wait, he did none of those because he feared the risk of conventional fighting immediately escalating to the nuclear level. That VERY NEARLY HAPPENED anyways on the submarine where Vasily Arkhipov alone stopped the nukes and saved the world. Here is the relevant section from Wikipedia Show nested quote +On 27 October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a group of 11 United States Navy destroyers and the aircraft carrier USS Randolph located the diesel-powered, nuclear-armed Foxtrot-class submarine B-59 near Cuba. (The B-59 was one of four Foxtrot submarines sent by the USSR to the area around Cuba.) Despite being in international waters, the United States Navy started dropping signaling depth charges, explosives intended to force the submarine to come to the surface for identification. There had been no contact from Moscow for a number of days and, although the submarine's crew had earlier been picking up U.S. civilian radio broadcasts, once B-59 began attempting to hide from its U.S. Navy pursuers, it was too deep to monitor any radio traffic. Those on board did not know whether war had broken out or not.[6][7] The captain of the submarine, Valentin Grigorievitch Savitsky, decided that a war might already have started and wanted to launch a nuclear torpedo.[8]
Unlike the other submarines in the flotilla, three officers on board B-59 had to agree unanimously to authorize a nuclear launch: Captain Savitsky, the political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and the chief of staff of the flotilla (and executive officer of B-59) Arkhipov. Typically, Soviet submarines armed with the "Special Weapon" only required the captain to get authorization from the political officer to launch a nuclear torpedo, but due to Arkhipov's position as chief of staff, B-59's captain also was required to gain his approval. An argument broke out, with only Arkhipov against the launch If Arkhipov had been on any other of the 4 subs, nuclear exchange between the USSR and the US starts right then.
So you’re saying it didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? Glad you got onto the same page as me at last.
|
On February 27 2022 12:48 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:44 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you. Did you even read the linked story? You don't seem willing to address my point about Arkipov, or Seven Days to the River Rhine, or the Able Archer crisis, wonder why. I guess there is no point arguing with you anymore though. According to your logic, you are always right up until the moment the nukes start flying. All I will say is that I am very glad you do not make policy for the UK or US. You are advocating global thermonuclear war whether you realize it or not. I’m advocating for the same brinkmanship JFK showed in the Cuban Missile Crisis. And yes, I am right that countries don’t get into nuclear exchanges and will be right until a nuclear exchange happens. Every time there has been a risk of a nuclear exchange leaders have deescalated. Conventional exchanges have a 0% record of leading to nuclear exchanges for all of human history.
No point in continuing to talk to a person whose position is "nuclear war is impossible until it happens so countries should be totally reckless with conventional weapons because nuclear weapons might as well not exist." Idiot.
|
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one
|
On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one
And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that...
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that...
I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak.
When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times.
|
On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you.
You do know what survivors bias is right? The history where that mistake is made is the one that doesn't exist because people don't get to tell it. You flip a coin and think heads can't come up because we got tails three times?
There is no historical determinism for why we haven't nuked each other into orbit, we've been very close and it's been virtually only sheer luck.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one
But it does mean that you should drive if you have somewhere worth driving to. Not drive recklessly but still drive. You certainly shouldn’t refuse to ever risk driving due to the hypothetical risk, even though there has never been a car accident in this metaphor.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 13:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you. You do know what survivors bias is right? The history where that mistake is made is the one that doesn't exist because people don't get to tell it. You flip a coin and think heads can't come up because we got tails three times? There is no historical determinism for why we haven't nuked each other into orbit, we've been very close and it's been virtually only sheer luck.
Hundreds of coin flips, all tails. Pakistan and India shoot each other constantly and at no point has someone proposed just killing everyone. At a certain point the “this time the coin will totally be heads” crowd need to recognize that the coin is being pushed towards tails. Nobody has ever started a nuclear exchange over soldiers being killed, they’ve always been treated as acceptable losses. Whatever the nuclear red line might be it is certainly not killing soldiers. Nukes are a last resort and soldiers are by definition expendable.
If a Russian bomber gets shot down by a NATO jet over Ukraine they’ll try to shoot down jets because that’s proportional. If a jet gets shot down NATO may target AA batteries within Ukraine (but not in Russia) because again that’s proportional. If things start escalating then China will call a conference because everyone is okay with pilots dying but would rather not destroy the world.
|
On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times.
You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why.
|
On February 27 2022 13:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:25 Nyxisto wrote:On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you. You do know what survivors bias is right? The history where that mistake is made is the one that doesn't exist because people don't get to tell it. You flip a coin and think heads can't come up because we got tails three times? There is no historical determinism for why we haven't nuked each other into orbit, we've been very close and it's been virtually only sheer luck. Hundreds of coin flips, all tails. Pakistan and India shoot each other constantly and at no point has someone proposed just killing everyone. At a certain point the “this time the coin will totally be heads” crowd need to recognize that the coin is being pushed towards tails. Nobody has ever started a nuclear exchange over soldiers being killed, they’ve always been treated as acceptable losses. Whatever the nuclear red line might be it is certainly not killing soldiers. Nukes are a last resort and soldiers are by definition expendable. If a Russian bomber gets shot down by a NATO jet over Ukraine they’ll try to shoot down jets because that’s proportional. If a jet gets shot down NATO may target AA batteries within Ukraine (but not in Russia) because again that’s proportional. If things start escalating then China will call a conference because everyone is okay with pilots dying but would rather not destroy the world.
Does your crystal ball for nuclear war also work on stocks?
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why.
The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 13:34 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:26 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:25 Nyxisto wrote:On February 27 2022 12:38 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:36 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 12:12 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 12:05 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
A no fly zone is purposeful and has to be enforced in order to be effective. Thus NATO and Russia would come to blows it is not comparable to Turkey shooting down a Russian aircraft that flew into their border during the against ISIS. Hell that has plausible deniability. A no fly zone doesn't. Which is why whenever shit gets to that point everyone says “let’s slow down and talk it out before we all die”. It’s happened multiple times through history. NATO and Russia could shoot each other for weeks with conventional weapons in an undeclared war and nobody would nuke each other because there’s no upside to escalating, troops dying has never been a red line. Dying is basically what they’re for, they’re allowed to die. No leader is so afraid of losses in conventional war that they’d rather nuclear war. It just doesn’t happen like that. The bolded statement is just literally completely false and demonstrates your utter lack of historical knowledge on this topic. Once again, please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasily_Arkhipov It is historical fact that the USSR didn’t nuke the US. I don’t get how you’re missing this. My claim is that history shows conventional exchanges don’t escalate. Yours is that it did. History supports me, not you. You do know what survivors bias is right? The history where that mistake is made is the one that doesn't exist because people don't get to tell it. You flip a coin and think heads can't come up because we got tails three times? There is no historical determinism for why we haven't nuked each other into orbit, we've been very close and it's been virtually only sheer luck. Hundreds of coin flips, all tails. Pakistan and India shoot each other constantly and at no point has someone proposed just killing everyone. At a certain point the “this time the coin will totally be heads” crowd need to recognize that the coin is being pushed towards tails. Nobody has ever started a nuclear exchange over soldiers being killed, they’ve always been treated as acceptable losses. Whatever the nuclear red line might be it is certainly not killing soldiers. Nukes are a last resort and soldiers are by definition expendable. If a Russian bomber gets shot down by a NATO jet over Ukraine they’ll try to shoot down jets because that’s proportional. If a jet gets shot down NATO may target AA batteries within Ukraine (but not in Russia) because again that’s proportional. If things start escalating then China will call a conference because everyone is okay with pilots dying but would rather not destroy the world. Does your crystal ball for nuclear war also work on stocks?
My crystal ball is just projecting past data forwards. So yes, it does. The SP500 in 20 years will be higher than it is today.
|
On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again.
There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine.
|
United States42008 Posts
On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine.
So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war? The parallels are obvious. A US blockade in an international zone to force Russian military assets to withdraw rather than escalate. That’s rather more than what I advocate for in Ukraine as the military assets in Ukraine are not nuclear armed.
|
On February 27 2022 13:47 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 27 2022 13:41 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:35 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:33 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:23 KwarK wrote:On February 27 2022 13:15 TheLordofAwesome wrote:On February 27 2022 13:13 Zambrah wrote:
I don’t think the lack of there having been a nuclear apocalypse means we should brazenly invite the conditions that can cause one, it’s not like you can eat more than one nuclear apocalypse. It happens and everything’s kind of fucked.
I haven’t ever been in a car accident but that doesn’t mean I should go and drive like I won’t ever be in one And yet Kwark is advocating precisely that... I am advocating for reading a history book and recognizing that there is a considerable body of evidence to support the argument that conventional exchanges between nuclear states lead to deescalation, not nuclear exchanges. The position that any conventional exchange must automatically lead to a nuclear exchange is wholly counter factual. It doesn’t happen, it has never happened, and there have been plenty of opportunities for it to happen. We’re talking hundreds of conventional exchanges between nuclear powers and zero nuclear exchanges. After the first few hundred times it doesn’t happen the argument that it’ll definitely happen next time seems pretty weak. When a nuclear power says “this is my red line” it is ridiculous to simply give them everything on that side of the line. You offer your own red line and when those red lines are incompatible you schedule talks rather than nuking each other. This has happened dozens of times. You smugly tell me to "read a history book", while citing the Cuban Missile Crisis as a piece of history that supports your argument, when in fact it supports mine. If you are wondering why I am being rude to you and calling you a moron, this is why. The same Cuban Missile Crisis where conventional exchanges didn’t lead to a nuclear exchange? That’s your historical example of conventional exchanges leading to nuclear exchanges? I think you may need to read that history book again. There WERE NO CONVENTIONAL EXCHANGES in the Cuban Missile Crisis. They were offered to JFK, in fact the military advocated using massive conventional force against the Russians in Cuba. He declined to do so, chose naval blockade (intimidation but NO SHOOTING) instead. And yet the naval blockade still nearly led to Russian submarine blasting nukes at the US Navy. Stopped by literally 1 man. Fighters armed with nukes nearly started nuking each other in the air too. That's what would likely happen if you start a no fly zone over Ukraine. So you agree that the US Navy used depth charges against Russian subs in the Cuban Missile Crisis without escalation to nuclear war?
Your attempt at a snarky gotcha question is not as smart as you think. Amazing what reading a history book can teach you.
No. The depth charges in question were empty signaling devices, not weapons of war, and the Russians were well aware of it at the time. Kind of like tossing a flare at soldiers who think they are hidden under cover as a way to say "I know you're there." The destroyer was not trying to kill the sub, just let the sub know that it had been found, and everyone involved knew that at the time.
This is in no way a deliberate exchange of conventional fires to kill the enemy, employed as a matter of national policy, which is what you are advocating w.r.t. Ukraine and a no fly zone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
